"Middle-Class Argument"
Sin,—Mr. Willott's contention, that a child's education should depend upon his ability, is one of those principles easy to enunciate and to justify in theory, but less easy to put into practice with justice. I wonder what ability means at the age of 11-plus, and by what test it is possible reliably to assess it. The infant prodigy and the moron may be easily recognisable, but it is the vast bulk-we are concerned with, those who will grow up to be " the average man." Objective tests may, indeed do, give a rough guide of aptitude, but it is inevitably rough—and rough justice must result from reliance upon them.
The best parent will do the best he can • for his child ; and certainly none will admit that his child is anything but bright, or at the very least one who will "develop later" if given a chance. The middle-class parent is entitled to his opinion of the school that is likely to give the child the best chance of this development, and, if he feels inclined, to maintain such a school, provided that it conforms with the Ministry's standards of efficiency.
In making the sacrifice involved in paying fees for the type of educa- tion he thinks best for his child, the middle-class parent is doing a public service, and for so doing would seem to merit some measure of tax relief. For if his child is " able," i.e., one who would have passed grammar school entrance, he is, by removing, him or her from the competition, releasing a much-sought-after place for another'. Although, as Mr. Willott says, it is common sense on the part of the State to make the best of the best, it is equally common sense to make the best possible of the naturally less well-endowed. In these days good provision is made for the best, better for the worst (if the recently published figures of the costs of the approved schools may serve as a guide), and very middling for the ordinary. If the middle-class parent's child belongs to this last large group—as by the law of averages many must do—then be is doing a public service by getting his child brought up a better trained member of society than in present circumstances the admittedly inadequate provision of the State could do.
It was, I suggest, lack of moral fibre rather than of a high I.Q. at 11-plus that was so lamentably noticeable in the statesmen we chose for our rulers between the wars.—Yours faithfully, RONALD LUNT.
Liverpool College.
Previous page
